Helmets are law again in Louisiana
81 - 100 of 236 Posts
Re: It doesn't matter if it's dangerous or not!
Back the government up the the size it was in 1900, and I think we would have a good start. More laws create more agencies that create more lobbying to create more laws to create more agencies. Gotta say one thing here. I have read your stuff in magazines since I was a kid JB. I respect your opinions and thoughts, even though I don't agree with some of them. I think it's pretty cool chatting with a guy I thought was a really good moto journo and read most of his stuff through the years. Gotta say the Internet is only really cool cause the Gov hasn't touched it. Yet. Let's hope they don't get here too soon, or we will have to wear helmets to type! LOL
Back the government up the the size it was in 1900, and I think we would have a good start. More laws create more agencies that create more lobbying to create more laws to create more agencies. Gotta say one thing here. I have read your stuff in magazines since I was a kid JB. I respect your opinions and thoughts, even though I don't agree with some of them. I think it's pretty cool chatting with a guy I thought was a really good moto journo and read most of his stuff through the years. Gotta say the Internet is only really cool cause the Gov hasn't touched it. Yet. Let's hope they don't get here too soon, or we will have to wear helmets to type! LOL
Joined
·
579 Posts
Re: It doesn't matter if it's dangerous or not!
Got news for ya Johnboy, that FDA ya seem to like is the root cause of the health care problems we face today.
there are two ways the FDA can kill people:
1) by approving a bad drug
2) by not approving a good drug
Option one is very easy to detect. Someone takes a drug and it kills them... folks notice.
Option two is not. The whole better safe than sorry.
So we have companies spending well over 200 million dollars to get drugs approved.
You know why drugs cost less in canada? economics. It's cheaper to get them approved there.
Got news for ya Johnboy, that FDA ya seem to like is the root cause of the health care problems we face today.
there are two ways the FDA can kill people:
1) by approving a bad drug
2) by not approving a good drug
Option one is very easy to detect. Someone takes a drug and it kills them... folks notice.
Option two is not. The whole better safe than sorry.
So we have companies spending well over 200 million dollars to get drugs approved.
You know why drugs cost less in canada? economics. It's cheaper to get them approved there.
I live in Louisiana and have ridden for 45 years, half of it offroad only. I have always ridden wearing a helmet, regardless of the law. Why take a chance? A few years ago a long-time riding buddy was trying out a new (to him) bike while helmetless and had slowed to turn around. A deer jumped out in front of him when he was off-balance and tumbled into him, he fell and hit his temple on a curb. Game over permanently for him. Speed was 5 mph.
Joined
·
579 Posts
Liberal ideology
By the way... it's been working great for ya. I mean... you guys have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country... but LA ain't exactly known for it's low crime right huh?
And how about those rollin' blackouts? Did ya like those too?
This is what happens when you look to the government to solve your problems Johnboy. Invariably, the government makes them worse.
By the way... it's been working great for ya. I mean... you guys have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country... but LA ain't exactly known for it's low crime right huh?
And how about those rollin' blackouts? Did ya like those too?
This is what happens when you look to the government to solve your problems Johnboy. Invariably, the government makes them worse.
Re: It doesn't matter if it's dangerous or not!
thanks LR, i appreciate that a lot.
In 1900, there was no such thing as food inspection, and thousands of people died from tainted meat and things. Sinclair Lewis wrote all about it in The Jungle (I think about the Chicago stockyards.) Rivers caught fire the pollution was so bad. Kids labored away in sweat shops from the age of 5. Life expectancy was somewhere shy of 40. Govt. is capable of excess of course, but all these agencies didn't arise out of a vacuum, they came into being because society saw a need.
thanks LR, i appreciate that a lot.
In 1900, there was no such thing as food inspection, and thousands of people died from tainted meat and things. Sinclair Lewis wrote all about it in The Jungle (I think about the Chicago stockyards.) Rivers caught fire the pollution was so bad. Kids labored away in sweat shops from the age of 5. Life expectancy was somewhere shy of 40. Govt. is capable of excess of course, but all these agencies didn't arise out of a vacuum, they came into being because society saw a need.
Joined
·
579 Posts
I'm not encouraging anything. In every post I have made some comment about idiots not wearing helmets, or wearing those little skull caps.
Everyone should wear a fullface helmet at all times. In fact, everyone should gear up from head to toe at all times.
Isn't odd to find someone who has an opinion, but doesn't think you should make his opinion law.
Everyone should wear a fullface helmet at all times. In fact, everyone should gear up from head to toe at all times.
Isn't odd to find someone who has an opinion, but doesn't think you should make his opinion law.
Re: It doesn't matter if it's dangerous or not!
Yes, I read The Concrete Jungle. Yes, some agencies are here to protect us, but protecting me from harmful products and polluters, and protecting me from myself are two different animals IMO. I think todays society sees too many needs for self-protection, and I rail against those. I think it goes something like the more idiot proof you make something, the more you become an idiot. Lets clear up that other issue. Yes, helmets are safer than not. No, I still don't want a law saying I have to wear one. Yes, I do wear a helmet 80% of the time. I also choose not to wear it and like the fact I can choose, adn would hope that you would be on the side of choice.
Yes, I read The Concrete Jungle. Yes, some agencies are here to protect us, but protecting me from harmful products and polluters, and protecting me from myself are two different animals IMO. I think todays society sees too many needs for self-protection, and I rail against those. I think it goes something like the more idiot proof you make something, the more you become an idiot. Lets clear up that other issue. Yes, helmets are safer than not. No, I still don't want a law saying I have to wear one. Yes, I do wear a helmet 80% of the time. I also choose not to wear it and like the fact I can choose, adn would hope that you would be on the side of choice.
Joined
·
1,538 Posts
Re: Seatbelts
Of course it was a 62 Impala, so even if you had been strapped-in and driving on clean/dry pavement "fine" control still wouldn't have been an option
Of course it was a 62 Impala, so even if you had been strapped-in and driving on clean/dry pavement "fine" control still wouldn't have been an option
Joined
·
1,538 Posts
Re: Faulty logic
Duh.
I'm fairly certain that Longride's entire post was about minimizing the risk of injury.
Oh Damnit! I just fell for it again! Damn you KPaulKook!!!!
Duh.
I'm fairly certain that Longride's entire post was about minimizing the risk of injury.
Oh Damnit! I just fell for it again! Damn you KPaulKook!!!!
Joined
·
44 Posts
I understand the "freedom of choice" arguments, but it just strikes me as kind of a stupid freedom to worry about. Kinda like fighting for the freedom to play Russian Roulette - after all, it's only you that is going to get hurt, right? So, it should be your choice?
I don't mean to offend anyone, but I really do feel like in this case the "right to choose" is nothing more than the "right to be stupid". I am a Canadian, and sometimes feel like you 'murcans take the personal liberties arguments to ridiculous extremes. If a behaviour is very obviously dangerous and has only very limited benefits (like, good hair? Saving $100? I dunno...) then I don't have a problem with disallowing it.
Just wear a lid for Pete's sake.
I don't mean to offend anyone, but I really do feel like in this case the "right to choose" is nothing more than the "right to be stupid". I am a Canadian, and sometimes feel like you 'murcans take the personal liberties arguments to ridiculous extremes. If a behaviour is very obviously dangerous and has only very limited benefits (like, good hair? Saving $100? I dunno...) then I don't have a problem with disallowing it.
Just wear a lid for Pete's sake.
Joined
·
1,538 Posts
"LET" the Gray Pony Tail Brotherhood.......
Exactly KP. We should "let" free people make their own choices. Or, are you of the opinion that someone can still be "free" while their govt. tells them what color shoes to wear and what to put on their heads and what to brush their teeth with? -Sean
Exactly KP. We should "let" free people make their own choices. Or, are you of the opinion that someone can still be "free" while their govt. tells them what color shoes to wear and what to put on their heads and what to brush their teeth with? -Sean
Great analogy "Russian Roulette" Can I quote you on that? Working with a couple of Canadians has made me think about these things a little differently. Americans need listen to our Canadians neighbors more, like a good friend they can tell you when you are being stupid. Iraq was a good example.
81 - 100 of 236 Posts
